ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Anaconda Construction Company ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4N-12-P-5086 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60905 

Mr. Shoib Khan 

CEO 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA 

Trial Attorney 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SWEET 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Appellant Anaconda Construction Company (ACC) brings this action 

challenging the government's decision that it was not entitled to the costs of two 

loaders allegedly destroyed in the course of performing the above-captioned contract, 

and the government's decision to deny ACC's settlement proposal. The government 

has moved to dismiss this action for failure to timely appeal the relevant contracting 

officer's final decisions. ACC submitted a short response to the motion. The motion 

is granted. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS CSOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 

1. The Bagram Regional Contracting Center (government) awarded Contract 

No. W91B4N-12-P-5086 to ACC to operate and maintain a burn pit for solid waste at 

Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan (R4, tab 1 at 4, 45 1). 

2. The government terminated the contract for convenience, effective 

15 October 2013 (R4, tab 35 at 164). The termination notice directed ACC to submit 

any settlement proposal by 15 November 2013 (id. at 165). 

3. On 24 October 2013, ACC submitted a claim (October claim) for the cost to 

replace two loaders that were destroyed by fire during incineration operations (R4, 

tab 40 at 185). The October claim was for $160,000 (id.). The October claim also 

1 All Rule 4 cites are to the consecutively-numbered pages. 
contained a certification in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Disputes 

Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109) (id. at 184). 

4. On 28 October 2013, the contracting officer (CO) emailed ACC a final 

decision on the October claim (October decision) (R4, tab 42). The CO determined 

that the government did not owe any funds to ACC (id. at 189). He also informed 

ACC that "[t]his is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this 

decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, 

within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish 

written notice to the agency." (Id.) 

5. On 7 November 2013, ACC apparently submitted a settlement proposal 

(settlement proposal) to the CO for $451,600, which represented labor and leased 

equipment expenses (R4, tab 49 at 210). 2 

6. On 18 November 2013, the CO sent ACC a "Notice of Intent to Settle by 

Contracting Officer Determination." The notice stated that the government intended to 

reject the settlement proposal due to a lack of supporting documentation. (R4, tab 49 at 

210) The notice also requested that ACC submit supporting documentation within 

15 days (id.). 

7. Within 15 days, ACC submitted a revised settlement proposal (R4, tab 48). The 

revised settlement proposal sought to recover ( 1) $160,000 for the two loaders that were 

the subject of the October claim; and (2) $112,900 in other costs (id.). The revised 

settlement proposal did not contain a certification3 (id.). 

8. On 26 November 2013, the CO sent ACC a final decision (November decision) 

on the revised settlement proposal (R4, tab 53). The November decision stated that, 

"[s]ince the matter of the loaders was addressed by previous Contracting Officer Final 

Decision (dated 28 Oct 2013) outside the termination process, ... the cost could not be 

included in the settlement" (id. at 223). The November decision also found that ACC 

was not entitled to any of the claimed $112,900 in costs (id.). As with the October 

decision, the November decision stated that "[t]his is the final decision of the Contracting 

Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you 

decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail 

or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency." (Id. at 224) 

2 The settlement proposal is not part of the record, but is referenced in the 

18 November 2013 notice of intent to settle (R4, tab 49 at 210; SOF ii 6). 

3 Nor was one required as a settlement proposal is typically submitted for negotiation 

and it becomes a claim after the parties reach an impasse. 

2 
9. On 7 November 2016--more than 90 days after the October decision and the 

November decision-ACC filed a notice of appeal with the Board.4 

DECISION 

We do not possess jurisdiction over this appeal from either final decision. The 

Contract Disputes Act (CDA) states that "[t]he contracting officer's decision on a 

claim is final and conclusive and is not subject to review by any forum, tribunal, or 

Federal Government agency, unless an appeal or action is timely commenced as 

authorized by this chapter." 41 U.S.C. § 7103(g). The CDA requires that a contractor 

certify a claim for more than $100,000. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(l). Indeed, "a written 

demand or written assertion by the contractor seeking the payment of money 

exceeding $100,000 is not a claim ... until certified as required by the statute." 

FAR 2.101. Therefore, we do not possess jurisdiction to hear an appeal when a 

contractor did not certify a claim for more than $100,000. Sygnetics, Inc., ASBCA 

No. 56806, 10-2 BCA ~ 34,576 at 170,464-65. 

The CDA also requires a contractor to appeal a final decision on a claim within 

90 days of receipt of that decision. 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Therefore, we do not possess 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal when a contractor failed to file a notice of appeal within 

90 days of its receipt of the final decision. Cosmic Constr. Co. v. United States, 697 

F.2d 1389, 1390-91 (1982). 

Here, ACC did not certify the November revised settlement proposal, despite 

the fact that it was for more than $100,000 (SOF ~ 7). Therefore, the revised 

settlement proposal was not a claim, and we do not possess jurisdiction over any 

appeal based upon that proposal. FAR 2.101; Sygnetics, 10-2 BCA ~ 34,576 at 

170,464-65. 5 While ACC certified the October claim, it did not file a notice of appeal 

within 90 days of the October decision on that claim (SOF ~~ 3, 9). Thus, we do not 

possess jurisdiction over an appeal of that decision either. Cosmic Constr., 697 F .2d at 

1390-91. 

ACC does not dispute that it failed to file a notice of appeal within 90 days of its 

receipt of the October decision or the November decision. Rather, in its brief response to 

the government's motion to dismiss, ACC argues that the CO did not inform it that it had 

4 ACC is not clear whether it is appealing the October decision, the November 

decision, or both (compl.). For purposes of this motion, we assume ACC is 

appealing both decisions. 

5 Even if ACC had certified the revised settlement proposal, it did not file a notice of 

appeal within 90 days of the November decision on that proposal, which would 

preclude our jurisdiction over any appeal based upon the revised settlement 

proposal. 

3 
to file an appeal within "30 days." The period for commencing an appeal does not 

commence if the CO inaccurately advises a contractor about its appeal rights, and the 

contractor detrimentally relies upon that inaccuracy. Decker & Co. v. West, 76 F.3d 1573, 

1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the CO accurately informed ACC in both the October 

decision and the November decision that "[i]f you decide to appeal, you must, within 

90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to 

the agency" (SOF ilil 4, 8). Because the CO accurately notified ACC that it had 

90 days6

-not 30 days-to file an appeal, the 90-day period for filing a notice of appeal 

commenced respectively when ACC received the October decision and the November 

decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The government's motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

Dated: 26 June 2017 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

JAMES R. SWEET 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

6 We do not know why ACC referenced 30 days in its response to the government's 

motion. 

4 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60905, Appeal of 

Anaconda Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

5 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals